Last quote about EPA

Scott Pruitt, Gina McCarthy and Liz Bowman, are the people who have been quoted the greatest number of times about EPA. You can find them on this page and an additional total of 279 people who have something to say about this topic. All the 516 quotes on this page are sorted by date and by name. You can also have access to the articles to get the context of the quotes. The most recent quote from Scott Pruitt is: “I don't believe that ... don't buy it.”.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about EPA

Elizabeth Betsy Southerland

The best case for our children and grandchildren is that they will pay the polluters bills through increased state taxes, new user fees, and higher water and sewer bills. The worst case is that they will have to live with increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.feedback

Jahan Wilcox

It's hard to believe that Elizabeth Southerland is retiring because of a budget proposal and not because she's eligible for her government pension. We wish Elizabeth Southerland the best in her retirement, and the EPA will continue to refocus on our core mission of protecting our air, land and water.feedback

Stanley Stan Meiburg

We thought, Now's the opportunity to do it, and to do it in the way that told the history of the agency.feedback

Christopher Sellers

It gives a good sense of what EPA has done over the last 40 years of its existence. It really explains what's at stake in having an agency like the EPA and having environmental laws to begin with.feedback

Jeannine Ginivan - Volkswagen

Drivers "may notice some differences in vehicle operating characteristics after the modification, but no significant changes to key vehicle attributes are expected, including reliability, durability, vehicle performance, drivability or other driving characteristics.feedback

Bob Dinneen

We are still reviewing the decision, but the fact the court has affirmed our position that EPA abused its general waiver authority by including factors such as demand and infrastructure in a waiver intended to be based solely on available supply is a great victory for consumers and the RFS program.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt works long hours and is available around the clock. He is extremely focused and disciplined, which is evident by the fact that he spearheaded over two dozen significant regulatory actions since being sworn in.feedback

Tom Udall

Congress must act because Administrator Pruitt has shown that he won't. The science hasn't changed since EPA proposed banning chlorpyrifos in 2015 and 2017. Only the politics have.feedback

Al Gore

President Donald Trump once called climate change a Chinese hoax (although he later claimed he was joking), and the man he appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, even denied the most basic scientific finding concerning global warming: that CO2 emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. That fact was proven by scientists more than 150 years ago! These misinformation efforts have thus far been all too effective. They've obstructed progress by normalizing outright denial of science so effectively that the U.S. has more climate change deniers than any other country.feedback

Marc Edwards

The road to Flint was paved with this nexus of complacency. Water utilities were cheating, EPA was looking the other way, and health departments were all too happy to let that occur because they wanted to keep their focus on lead paint. This is the one lead source that is government owned, government controlled, and directly affects a product intended for human consumption.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Human activity [is not the] primary contributor to the global warming that we see.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

The Trump EPA continues to put special interests before the health and safety of the people they serve. It's simply outrageous to block these common sense protections – and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science.feedback

Liz Purchia Gannon

The American people aren't paying taxes for part-time Cabinet officials.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt is committed to serving the president by leading the Environmental Protection Agency; he is not running for elected office. The administrator's travel, whether to Utah, Michigan or Oklahoma, all serves the purpose of hearing from hard-working Americans about how E.P.A. can better serve the American people.feedback

Ian LeMay

Calls for a ban are not grounded in sound science. Further, unnecessary and unjustified restrictions limiting the utility of chlorpyrifos would disrupt pest management programs and could significantly change general insecticide use patterns and result in significant economic harm to California growers.feedback

Paul Towers - Pesticide Action Network

The evidence is very, very strong and compelling – some of the best of any single pesticide in the world.feedback

Al Gore

Trump has surrounded himself with climate deniers, They're doing their best to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and anything that promotes good policies to solve the climate crisis. It was cordial and mutually respectful and he listened and participated. I came away with the impression that he would come to his senses.feedback

Myron Ebell

They're trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don't want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first.feedback

Rick Perry

No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.feedback

Doug Ericksen

We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration.feedback

Seth Meyers

If you've been following the recent saga of the Republican healthcare bill, which, once again, failed to get the necessary votes to pass, you might think the Trump administration isn't accomplishing anything. But there is one department, the EPA, that has actually been quietly implementing big changes, unfortunately for the benefit of a select few.feedback

Patti Goldman

We are disappointed. The tragedy is children are being exposed to this pesticide that can cause brain damage. That's going to happen for a longer period of time.feedback

Stephen Colbert

So then we found out there was also a sixth person. That's more people than are currently working at Trump's EPA. Now, no one is saying that there were seven people in the meeting. Because it turns out there were at least eight people in the room. Eight. That's not even counting the other Russians that were nesting inside of them.feedback

Scott Pruitt

What VW did was very, very troublesome and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. Look at VW, and Fiat – you have this Fiat case that is on the horizon as well. The emails and the communications that I'm aware of – it was strategic and intentional and should be dealt with very aggressively. I wouldn't call what was done too light at all.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Look at VW, and Fiat – you have this Fiat case that is on the horizon as well. The emails and the communications that I'm aware of – it was strategic and intentional and should be dealt with very aggressively. I wouldn't call what was done too light at all. We've reached out to the California governor as part of our CAFE midterm review in 2018. I'm hopeful that the state of California, the governor there, will respond with reciprocity and we are working through that process.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

The court reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that its decision vacating Administrator Pruitt's unlawful suspension of these clean-air protections limiting oil and gas pollution swiftly take effect.feedback

Scott Pruitt

If you're going to win and if you're so certain about it, come and do your deal. They shouldn't be scared of the debate and discussion.feedback

Liz Bowman

The agency was not going to meet the original deadline for all 50 states. This administrator doesn't like being outside the bounds of statutory deadlines so he said extend it. We're continuing our work.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We have nothing to be apologetic about. It was absolutely a decision of courage and fortitude and truly represented an America First strategy with respect to how we are leading on this issue.feedback

Scott Pruitt

It is a question about how much we contribute to it. How do we measure that with precision? And by the way, are we on an unsustainable path? And is it causing an existential threat?feedback

Scott Pruitt

There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered. Who better to do that than a group of scientists… getting together and having a robust discussion for all the world to see. I think so… You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that. I think they deserve it.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

This ruling declares EPA's action illegal – and slams the brakes on Trump Administration's brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment. The ruling recognizes that EPA lacks the authority to simply scrap these critical protections. And it shows the courts are going to enforce the rule of law on health and environment. The Trump Administration's war on the environment and our health has hit a brick wall.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that's longer doesn't mean that you're going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.feedback

Cecilia Malmström - European Trade

The Japanese don't agree with some of the key technical issues (in the deal) which are fundamental for the EU, especially those referred to investment.feedback

Thomas Burke

These kind of actions will put a brake on the progress we've seen. Having worked in fence-line communities and places with contaminated water, I don't think people there are saying 'we are clean enough, let's roll things back'. There's a very obvious shift at the EPA to make it more business-friendly. Maybe that's not a bad thing for the business community, but I am very concerned this will impact the health of millions of people.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

The court says you can consider changing the rules but you have to do it the normal way, with a comment period. You can't yank it out of existence on your say-so.feedback

Richard J. Lazarus - Harvard Law Review

Changing the rules mid-stream can occur only after a thorough administrative review, including public notice and opportunity to comment, that ensures that there are good reasons for the change, backed up by sound policy and science.feedback

Richard J. Lazarus - Harvard Law Review

The court's ruling is yet another reminder, now in the context of environmental protection, that the federal judiciary remains a significant obstacle to the president's desire to order immediate change. The D.C. Circuit's ruling today makes clear that neither the president nor his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, can by fiat unilaterally and instantaneously repeal or otherwise stay the effectiveness of the environmental protection rules put into place during the Obama administration.feedback

Liz Bowman

They did not discuss chlorpyrifos. During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.feedback

Liz Bowman

Despite several years of study, EPA has concluded that the science addressing chlorpyrifos remains unresolved.feedback

Timothy Ballo

This is a big win for public health and a wake-up call for this administration. While Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump continue to bend over backwards to do the bidding of Big Oil, Earthjustice and our clients and partners will use every tool at our disposal to hold them fully accountable for their actions.feedback

Austin Evers

President Trump tapping Carl Icahn to give advice on energy regulations is the definition of conflict of interest. We need to know what kind of influence Mr. Icahn has at the EPA to see if he has been shaping energy policy to benefit himself at the expense of American families. It seems Mr. Icahn, like so many other Trump administration officials, may be using his position for his own personal financial benefit.feedback

Nathan Donley

California's decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides. The U.S. EPA now needs to step up and acknowledge that the world's most transparent and science-based assessment has linked glyphosate to cancer.feedback

Brian Christman - American Lung Association

It is clear from this study that there is not really a safe level of air pollution. The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency have done great work, but the data indicates that additional effort to reduce PM2.5 and ozone would save lives. As a matter of fact, further reduction in PM2.5 below the (federal standard) of 12 micrograms per cubic meter are likely to be even more effective than previous reductions.feedback

Steve Daines

Today marks the beginning of restoring private property rights while protecting our environment. Out of state D.C. bureaucrats shouldn't impose regulations that hurt Montana farmers, ranchers and landowners.feedback

Patrick Leahy

This budget that you've proposed doesn't uphold your agency's mission. We ought to be doubling down on our investment to protect our environment for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We ought to curb the effects of climate change. Instead, the administration is tearing down the legacy of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.feedback

Lisa Murkowski

We have rejected changes like these in past, and I will certainly push my colleagues to do so again this year.feedback

Tom Udall

The budget request before us today is downright offensive. I can't square this with your rhetoric about returning EPA to its core responsibilities. Nothing was spared. EPA's core is hollowed out. … These cuts aren't an intent to rein in spending, they are an intentional step to undermine science and ignore environmental and public health realities.feedback

Lamar Smith

Dr. Swackhamer and the Minority have repeatedly stated that she was testifying in her personal capacity and not in connection with her role as chair of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors. Any attempt by EPA. to ensure that what Congress heard in testimony about official EPA. matters included the full breadth of information seems entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, the Minority has made the choice to waste taxpayer dollars as part of a politically motivated agenda.feedback

Michael Brune - Sierra Club

Once again, the Trump administration has agreed to do the bidding of the worst polluters in our country, and once again it's putting the health of American families and communities at risk. We will fight this and every other attempt by polluters and the Trump administration to destroy our water resources.feedback

Hal Quinn

This sets in motion a welcome correction to a deeply problematic regulation that ignored the careful balance that Congress struck between federal and state water regulation and constitutional limits on federal authority.feedback

Howard Learner

This foolish rollback of clean water standards rejects years of work building stakeholder input and scientific data support, and it imperils the progress for safe clean drinking water in the Midwest.feedback

Catherine McCabe - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

At this time, we do not believe that the data, the science or the law support the EPA imposing a requirement on GE to do more dredging.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation's farmers and businesses. This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine 'waters of the U.S.' and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.feedback

Debbie Chizewer

The health department recommended [EPA] do something [throughout those decades], but it didn't and there's no explanation for why.feedback

Debbie Chizewer

When you think about this case and the number of impacted residents and the money that it takes to clean this up and then you look at the possibility of EPA not having funding to do this kind of work at this site or around the country, it's extremely upsetting. We would continue to have cases like East Chicago for many decades to come.feedback

Robb Fraley - Monsanto Company

I would put RNA in the suite of really advanced, next-generation technologies that are adding to the excitement from a research perspective.feedback

Liz Bowman

Streamlining and reorganizing is good government and important to maximizing taxpayer dollars. This includes looking at developing opportunities for individuals to retire early. It's a process that mirrors what the Obama Administration EPA did about four years ago, to ensure that payroll expenses do not overtake funds used for vital programs to protect the environment.feedback

Scott Pruitt

With respect to the proposed cuts on personnel, that is something that we plan to achieve through attrition, continuation of the hiring freeze and the initiation of buyouts. About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today. That's going to increase over the next several years.feedback

Shaye Wolf

Perry has the science exactly backward. Far from being climate change's key cause, the world's oceans are actually another victim of greenhouse pollution. Our oceans absorb millions of tons of carbon dioxide a day, making them dangerously acidic. They've also soaked up most of man-made global warming's excess heat, putting tremendous stress on marine life.feedback

Rick Perry

We're not necessarily going to be cutting a bunch of programs out in totality. What we are going to be doing is looking at these agency functions: What can be consolidated? How do you get rid of duplicative efforts? Being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite all right. This idea that science is absolutely settled and that if you don't believe it's settled, you're somehow or another a Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I believe we can fulfill the mission of our agency with a trimmed budget, with proper leadership and management. We recognize the importance of the Great Lakes. We recognize the importance to the citizens in that region, and we're going to work with Congress to ensure that those objectives are obtained.feedback

Nita Lowey

I'll get straight to it. The fiscal year 2018 budget request for EPA is a disaster.feedback

Scott Pruitt

About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today, and that's going to increase over the next several years. That's how we're going to address the proposed cuts to personnel.feedback

David Joyce - GE Aviation

Cleaning up the lakes isn't about correcting mistakes from the past, but creating new opportunities and a brighter future for our shoreline communities.feedback

George Wyeth

We're people who worked at EPA over years and decades. We've seen lots of different policy approaches, lots of different policy viewpoints. [But] when you look at a budget proposal of this kind, it raises serious concerns about the agency's capacity and integrity.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It is unconscionable that this unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution will increase dangerous smog, methane, and cancer-causing benzene when commonsense solutions are at hand. Every day that these clean air safeguards are delayed, thousands of oil and gas wells across the country will emit dangerous pollution in the air, harming the health of our children.feedback

Kathleen Sgamma

Both rules vastly exceeded federal authority. In the case of the BLM rule, the bureau tried to assume authority that resides with the states and EPA to regulate air quality. In the case of the EPA rule, the agency attempted to regulate methane without conducting a methane endangerment finding, as required by the Clean Air Act. The actions today by the agencies are a first step to correcting that federal regulatory overreach.feedback

Meleah Geertsma - Natural Resources Defense Council

In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law. The Trump administration does not have unlimited power to put people's health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this. Stopping methane leaks is a no-brainer -- avoiding wasted gas, creating jobs, fighting climate change and cutting cancer-causing pollution all at once. We will not stand for this blatant polluter giveaway.feedback

Alyssa Hall

I felt like we were being attacked on a daily basis from headquarters. A lot of my projects were being cancelled or postponed indefinitely, so I was left with nothing to do. If it was a project associated with climate change people at headquarters would pick up the phone rather than email. Staff were paranoid that their programs were going to get cut if they mentioned climate change. One day it was fine and then it was like you were being slapped in the face every day.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This is not a message to anyone in the world that America should be apologetic of its CO2 position. We're actually making tremendous advances. We're just not going to agree to frameworks and agreements that put us at an economic disadvantage and hurt citizens across this country.feedback

Cynthia Giles

To bring cases you need money for monitoring equipment, engineering issues, management of millions of documents – all that would be zeroed out in this budget. Enforcement is focused on the biggest threats to public health, cases the states can't and won't do. The message this budget sends is that enforcement laws aren't a priority for this administration, which is very concerning.feedback

Liz Bowman

America's miners and drillers are getting back to work under President Trump with the seventh straight month of job creation, after 25 consecutive months of decline in the previous administration.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt was referring to mining, which includes coal.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It delivers almost half of the smog reductions and more than half of the methane reductions and 90 percent of toxic air pollution reductions. There's absolutely no assurance to the public, who stand to benefit from these protections, that this will happen in the absence of enforceable safeguards. It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Chris Wallace

As the president's EPA administrator, isn't that a conversation you need to have?feedback

Laurence Tubiana

Of course US government CAN legally downsize its contribution but SHOULD Not.feedback

Kellyanne Conway

President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation.feedback

David Konisky

I do think the refusal to acknowledge climate change as a serious problem facing the United States and the world, as well as the reckless decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, does risk alienating moderate Republicans and Independents.feedback

Chris Wallace

Aren't you focusing on the wrong thing? Aren't you and the president focusing on protecting the horse-and-buggy business just as cars come online?feedback

Scott Pruitt

When we joined Paris, the rest of the world applauded … because it put this country at disadvantage. It's a bad deal for this country. We're going to make sure as we make deals we're going to put the interests of America first. The focus in the last several weeks was centered on the merits and demerits of the Paris climate agreement. The president has indicated the climate is changing, it's always changing. I've indicated the same. Well, frankly, George, I think the whole question is an effort of trying to get it off the point.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This president's deregulation agenda, particularly in the energy space, is making a substantial impact around the country. No. I think what's also being missed here is when you look at how we generate power in this country, we need fuel diversity.feedback

J. David Cox

Y'all go downstairs now. Y'all go downstairs and send me up some more EPA folk.feedback

Scott Pruitt

With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The world applauded when we joined Paris, and you know why? I think they applauded because they knew it was going to put this country at an economic disadvantage. And the reason European leaders ... that I think they want us to stay in, is because they know it will continue to shackle our economy. The United States has a seat at the table. After all, we're the United States.feedback

John Walke

Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a foreman of a wrecking crew, rather than an architect. It is easy to initiate that hostile agenda with a skeleton staff, press releases and instructions to Justice Department attorneys to file motions in court. That's the easy part. The hard part is navigating the multi-year legal process to actually reverse legal protections, withstand the political outcry and to have those reversals upheld in court.feedback

Drew Edmondson

While I'm disappointed in what he's doing [in Washington], I'm certainly not surprised. Pruitt's positions are very similar to what the president enunciated during the campaign.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt is implementing President Trump's executive orders to protect the environment, save manufacturing jobs and promote American energy independence.feedback

Scott Segal

He's not afraid to express his point of view. He's a pretty bold guy. The White House culture is much more, you go in hitting and attack.feedback

Basil Seggos

We strongly disagree with their conclusions and maintain that the significant amount of contamination left in the river threatens both public health and the environment.feedback

Kirsten Gillibrand

I am disappointed that the EPA couldn't muster up the courage to do the job they set out to do and clean up the Hudson. This decision is now entering a 30-day comment period before it is made final, and I encourage all New Yorkers to raise their voices and demand that the EPA finish the job of removing the remaining PCBs.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

On the heels of news reports that the U.S. will walk away from a global commitment to combat climate change, President Trump is sabotaging headway the U.S. has already made. The Trump administration is giving its friends in the oil and gas industry a free pass to continue polluting our air. ... We will fight Trump's latest polluter giveaway in court.feedback

William Ruckelshaus

His climate-related budget cuts reflect willful ignorance of an enormous threat.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

A budget to me was always a policy document. Every regulation promulgated by EPA is based in science.feedback

Thomas Burke

God forbid, if we have to clean up a water supply after a terrorist activity, it [would be] in this office.feedback

Thomas Burke

I'm very concerned the IRIS program will be zeroed out. There's an endless challenge by polluters to delay the science.feedback

Paul Ryan

The aspiration and the goal [of this budget] is right on the target.feedback

Tom Carper

I think if [President Obama's EPA administrator] Gina McCarthy had been so inept in responding to the inquiries of our Republican colleagues, they would have shut down the Senate.feedback

Jose Tarazona

The observer from the US-EPA [Rowlands] informed participants during the teleconference about potential flaws in the Kumar (2001) study related to viral infections.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

During the previous administration the pendulum went too far to one side where we were spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently. We don't get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean we are anti-science? Absolutely not. I don't need to take this much of your money and to bury it in the ground out in western Texas someplace for domestic security and national security reasons when we have domestic surpluses like we do.feedback

Myron Ebell

I said several positive and a couple very positive things about Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. He's got people on different sides and they are all fighting over who gets these jobs and nobody has the clout except the president to say, Hey fix this, let's get this done.feedback

Leila Conners

Americans are often under the belief that the EPA or their local state environmental agency is going to save them from environmental pollution, and that is simply not the case.feedback

Bill Becker

These cuts will mean delays in meeting health-based air quality standards, less inspections against noncomplying facilities, decreased monitoring in metropolitan areas, and fewer agency staff to address air quality problems.feedback

Charlie Dent

We want a functioning EPA and want their decisions to be based on best practices and science. I don't think anyone is here to kill the agency, we're here to make it work better.feedback

Bill Becker

In short, these cuts will result in more people dying prematurely and getting sick unnecessarily.feedback

Myron Ebell

Paris and the endangerment finding are the two big outstanding issues. It's the first wave of things that are necessary to turn this country around, particularly in the heartland states. The new president doesn't have long before inertia sets in. Pruitt was an excellent choice to head the EPA, and minor disagreements aside, his recent actions have made me even more confident that he will be an outstanding administrator.feedback

Liz Bowman

The budget prioritizes federal funding for work in infrastructure, air and water quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.feedback

Bill Becker

You would have thought the administration would have revised the budget in light of the overwhelming adverse reaction they encountered from previous trial balloons, instead ... they doubled down.feedback

David Bloom

Senior leadership made decisions to allocate the carry-over funds set aside earlier this year to address agency's priorities for incentive payments for workforce reshaping, support for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OGC), travel for the Administrator's protective detail, rent, continued space reduction efforts, eDiscovery, agency cloud services and the OGC's workforce support.feedback

Michael Flynn

In light of this guidance, we will begin the steps necessary to initiate an early out/buy out . . . program. Given our resource situation, we will continue a freeze on external hiring. Very limited exceptions to this external hiring freeze may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.feedback

Virginia Ruiz

We were extremely disappointed with the EPA's decision but the administration received a lot of pressure from industry and donors. I don't have much confidence that the current administration will end the use of chlorpyrifos. These are the incidents we are afraid of because workers and their kids are particularly vulnerable to the effects of this pesticide. It's not just the acute incidents but also low level exposures that are harmful to children. It's a double standard to expect farm workers to be exposed to something that's banned from homes.feedback

John D. Paarlberg

Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and limiting the effects of climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. For the sake of the most vulnerable among us, for the sake of future generations, for the sake of the planet, please do not undermine the Clean Power Plan and other critical environmental protections.feedback

Karen Sonnessa

Have we failed to learn from history, and forgotten the harm done to our air, water, and wetlands? If anything, regulations need to be more stringent. I remember the days of smog, pollution, and rivers spontaneously combusting. EPA is for the people.feedback

Kristine Anstine

Regulations are PROTECTIONS. Please enforce all existing clean air and water protections and consider creating more.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment. By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The agreement will not guarantee or prejudge a particular outcome, but will provide Pebble a fair process for their permit application and help steer EPA away from costly and time-consuming litigation. We are committed to due process and the rule of law, and regulations that are 'regular'. We understand how much the community cares about this issue, with passionate advocates on all sides … We are committed to listening to all voices as this process unfolds.feedback

Raul Grijalva

The Trump administration should listen to the more than 65 percent of Alaskans, 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents and native communities, and 85 percent of commercial fishermen who oppose Pebble Mine.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

We think we're going to be able to get our permit granted in record time.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

The Pebble Partnership will advance a progressive mine plan, including mitigation, to be assessed by objective, expert regulators at the US Army Corps of Engineers and a raft of other federal and state agencies – including EPA. Not only are we no longer facing extraordinary development restrictions at Pebble, we will also be assured a fair and predictable permitting review of our proposed development plan.feedback

Taryn Kiekow Heimer - Natural Resources Defense Council

Bristol Bay is too important – economically, environmentally, and culturally – to be sacrificed for the sake of a mine. The Trump administration's willingness to set aside that proposed determination is a disaster. Instead of making America great, it risks America's greatest wild salmon runs.feedback

Alannah Hurley

If there's damage to the watershed and the fisheries, then it would be devastating to our identity as indigenous people. For the company to paint it as federal intervention is completely misleading. The people of Bristol Bay basically cried out to EPA to help us.feedback

Brett Hartl

It obviously sends a psychological message to big mining companies that if they were nervous about getting permits in the past ... that this is their golden opportunity to get their mine through the process.feedback

Luke Popovich

I think the public is in no danger of seeing genuine environmental protection diminished. We're simply asking for a more efficient process.feedback

Tom Collier - Pebble

It will be a busy and exciting year for Pebble and Alaska. Not only will we be rolling out a project that is smaller, with demonstrable environmental protections, we will also be announcing a number of new initiatives to ensure our project is more responsive to the priorities and concerns of Alaskans. We know the Pebble Project must not only protect the world-class fisheries of Bristol Bay, it must also benefit the people of the region and the state in a meaningful way. It is our intent to demonstrate how we will meet those goals in the period ahead.feedback

Wilbur Ross

A company shouldn't have to be hundreds of millions of dollars into risk money without knowing whether there is a real chance it is going to get approved. So one of the problems is the regulation itself. And some of those regulatory problems are at the state and local level.feedback

Wilbur Ross

On permitting, there are a lot of things. Mostly EPA-related issues. Well, if you can imagine that if they (EPA) torture you with getting a permit for a porta potty, how about a permit to actually drill a well? That whole mindset has got to change. They've been eight years trying to get permits to do it. There's been hundreds of millions of dollars (spent), and they still don't even have the assurance that they will get it.feedback

Robert Richardson

It's a very apolitical board. We never discussed politics. We never discussed regulations or proposed regulations. It's just reacting to science outputs and giving recommendations. Doing something like this has no practical effect on regulatory reform, but it may send some message to the administration's base that, We're getting rid of these scientists.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

We're scientists reading nerdy reports, meeting with other brilliant scientists, talking about particle size or spore size. The work [we were] doing is very, very technical. This isn't light reading. But this is very important research. What do you do with dead birds? What do you do with Ebola waste?feedback

Robert Richardson

Our board's responsibility is to review science, to review the scientific outputs [of the EPA Office of Research and Development]. Posters, papers, decision support tools, things of that nature. This is completely separate from the regulatory side of the house.feedback

Courtney Flint

This came as a surprise. I was told that the agency plans to carry out a competitive nomination process to solicit new members. No other reason was given.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

I would say… the country needs more people who have that experience. There aren't many people who study how to manage waste after a biological incident.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

Dr. Paula Olsiewski has a unique and deep level of expertise in biosecurity. She provided support and leadership, through her programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, for activities that have formed a basis for current approaches to biosecurity.feedback

Courtney Flint

It's clear from the reports in the media that the current administration has said that they want to replace board positions held by academic scientists with members from industry, so I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

It may be surprising that two women were leading the homeland security committee. But if you were to review our resumés, you would see we're highly skilled, with deep experience and subject-matter expertise. I'm not saying that this is gender-based, but it has been shown that science gets done best when it's done by diverse teams.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

When bird flu hit various poultry farmers, and you're the farmer, where do you go for advice? All these chickens and turkeys have to go somewhere after you euthanize a flock. What do you do with that waste so it doesn't contaminate other flocks? The EPA's homeland-security research team figured out what to do. This is not sexy research.feedback

Robert Richardson

The research takes place, and you hope there's someone at the top asking, What have we learned from the science, so that it can shape policy?' But we didn't discuss that [on the board], and it's outside of our purview.feedback

Courtney Flint

I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

J.P. Freire

We're not going to rubber-stamp the last administration's appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool. This approach is what was always intended for the board, and we're making a clean break with the last administration's approach.feedback

J.P. Freire

Advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency's work. EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees -- including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel -- and carry out a competitive nomination process. No one has been fired or terminated.feedback

Robert Richardson

The science will show the impact of a particular chemical or toxic substance, but we would never say it should be banned or regulated in a particular way. The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. It is not to minimize cost to industry.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

There's hiring freeze, so we can't actually replace them until EPA says it's OK. We're kind of hobbled, to say the least. ... They have essentially said they will look to industry scientists for much of their advice.feedback

Robert Richardson

This is a significant step toward the erosion of science, and I think that it is happening subtly throughout the agency.feedback

Tom Toles

In another display of bare-knuckled, unprincipled ruthlessness, Scott Pruitt of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has a solution to the stubborn nature of facts: Replace the scientists who assess those facts with people who will tell you what you want to hear. That’s right — the agenda now is to begin removing actual scientists from the EPA’s Board of Science Counselors and replace them with non-academics. The idea is to replace “the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate.”.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

We have spirited conversations about the science – we don't just rubber-stamp what the EPA wants to do. These people are valuable, highly qualified and highly vetted. It's troubling that political considerations have come into this.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

This administration has made statements not terribly favorable to science. There would be a morality issue if the committee is turned into a political pawn of a certain viewpoint. Our credibility would be destroyed. We would be seen within the scientific community as tainted.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

The committee has been eviscerated. We assumed these people would be renewed and there was no reason or indication they wouldn't be. These people aren't Obama appointees, they are scientific appointees. To have a political decision to get rid of them was a shock. If you have industry hand-picked people, the concern would be that they would have a frequent conflict because we discuss areas that touch upon big industry.feedback

Courtney Flint

In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards.feedback

Robert Richardson

I was kind of shocked to receive this news. I've never heard of any circumstance where someone didn't serve two consecutive terms.feedback

Robert Richardson

Today, I was Trumped. I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.feedback

Matthew Huber

So the administration has removed a well executed, scientifically valid guide to protecting health – information needed right now not just in the distant future. This seems to be a direct abrogation of the EPA's mission 'to protect human health and the environment.feedback

Matthew Huber

[E]very administration has the right and indeed responsibility to review, update and improve the policies and websites of agencies under their purview, so there is nothing inherently wrong with the EPA website being revised. It does strike me as unusual and irresponsible to take the entire climate change website down at once and not conduct a rolling review and update. This is akin to removing all emergency exit signs from a movie theater while a movie is showing because the upper management has decided they might need to improve their disaster plans.feedback

Kerry Emanuel

In particular, it was careful to describe the uncertainties associated with climate risks, such as rising sea level and changing incidence of extreme weather and climate events. It presented the current understanding of the science and possible solutions in a fair and balanced way. I am sorry to see it go.feedback

Doug Blair

I'm from Pittsburgh, where our skies were dark at noon and people changed their shirts at lunch because they were filthy from the smoke from the mills. I oppose any rollback of environmental protections premised on the 'jobs vs. the environment' dilemma. We can have both.feedback

Emily Key

I actually enjoy breathing clean air and drinking clean water and would find it quite burdensome not to.feedback

Jamie Abelson

Even when companies are forced to pay for the destruction they cause, the amounts they are fined pale in comparison to the profits they make from breaking the rules. EPA must fight to maintain any environmental regulations that protect the health of American workers, communities and ecosystems.feedback

Leonardo DiCaprio

Honored to join Indigenous leaders and native peoples as they fight for climate justice. Join me in standing with them. #ClimateMarch. Today's #ClimateMarch leaves me inspired & hopeful for our future. We must continue to work together & fight for #climatejustice.feedback

J.P. Freire

As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency. We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we're protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

This is the least he can do. But the Office of Special Counsel still must do a thorough investigation to determine whether Administrator Pruitt ran afoul of the Hatch Act.feedback

Scott Pruitt

What happened was the folks that invited me sent out an invitation, post that approval, that didn't comply with federal law and federal ethics law, so we're not going to be able to attend because of the invitation.feedback

Lori Ann Burd

It's outrageous that on the same day the EPA acknowledged these dangerous pesticides are killing bees it also reversed course on mandating restrictions on their use. This is like a doctor diagnosing your illness but then deciding to withhold the medicine you need to cure it.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

Scott Pruitt has a long record of dark money fundraising and cozy relationships with big, fossil-fuel political donors. The American people need to know whether he is using his position at EPA to promote the political actors who support him.feedback

J.P. Freire

We worked closely with our ethics counsel to ensure compliance, and when we received the invitation, we understood immediately that it did not conform to our rules and acted accordingly.feedback

Bill Nye

We are in a dangerous place. There is a technique of dismantling government from within, which is the thinking of (Trump adviser Steven) Bannon. They are hiring the least qualified people on the planet to run the agencies, such as Mr Pruitt at the EPA and Ms (Betty) DeVos at the department of education. The idea that regulations are inherently bad is misguided. We will be reminding politicians of the importance of science tomorrow.feedback

Brett Hartl

You can't just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data. It's wrong morally, and it's illegal.feedback

Lonnie Randolph

Somebody dropped the ball somewhere. Maybe it was intentional, or maybe by mistake. Maybe it was negligence.feedback

Cheryl Rivera

We are here in the West Calumet complex because injustice is here in East Chicago. We are here because environmental racism is here. We are here because climate injustice is here. We are here because thousands of families' lives are at risk.feedback

Demetra Turner

Keep fighting people, keep fighting, because that is what it takes.feedback

Joe Donnelly

There is a budget that is sent over and then there is a real budget that is put together. And the real budget will provide the funds necessary to make sure East Chicago is right.feedback

Andres Restrepo - Sierra Club

Scott Pruitt is continuing his relentless assault on public health and a stable climate at the behest of corporate polluters by seeking to dismantle life-saving methane safeguards. His decision to delay the standards on behalf of his close ally is, quite simply, illegal.feedback

Michael Flynn

In light of this guidance, we will begin the steps necessary to initiate an early out/buy out … program. Given our resource situation, we will continue a freeze on external hiring. Very limited exceptions to this external hiring freeze may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.feedback

Dick Durbin

Such an action would be irresponsible & demonstrate clear disregard for the health and safety of millions of residents of Great Lakes region.feedback

Robert Kaplan

They made pleas for assistance, for help. You really could have heard a pin drop in that room.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The reason I'm here is because it's important that we restore confidence to the people here in this community that we're going to get it right. They can have the confidence that their land, their health is going to be secure in the long-term.feedback

Scott Pruitt

EPA is continuing to follow through with President Trump's Energy Independence Executive Order. American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized.feedback

Thomas Frank

We can't drink the waters. The land we walk upon is contaminated. And we air we breathe is contaminated.feedback

Fred Upton

If true, this report is shocking. Whatever the deficiencies of the Region 5 office, the folks there do play a critical role in protecting human health and the environment.feedback

Michael Mikulka - American Federation of Government Employees

If you close our office, the ability to protect the Great Lakes would be in danger. The work we do here is too important to cut.feedback

James Pew

There's no way it could ever make that showing when it comes to power plants. It's really hard to understand why the administration would want to do this.feedback

Ann Weeks

The Trump Administration and EPA Administrator Pruitt are again playing fast and loose with Americans' health. Seeking to delay the oral argument scheduled for May 18th serves no public purpose whatsoever.feedback

Graham McCahan

Virtually every power plant in America is already in compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Weakening them would be a serious threat to the safety of our food, air and water.feedback

David Michaels

The culture of the trade associations in Washington is to attack any new regulation as burdensome, even though the empirical evidence is that they're easily met, they're not burdensome and they save lives. But injured workers don't have a voice in Washington. Trade associations do.feedback

Ken Cook

The big picture is at every turn, once the transition began, every special interest in the country was signaled, Hey, it's all-you-can-eat.feedback

Rosario Palmieri

This has a tremendous opportunity to be very successful and result in real burden reductions.feedback

Janet McCabe

The signals that they're sending through the way they describe their initiative is the audience they're worried about, to the exclusion of everybody else, is industry.feedback

Jeffrey D. Zients

At a time when many CEOS are focused on the short term and looking to maximize their profitability each quarter, I believe that a lot of their aversion to these regulations reflects a short-term mind-set that values reducing costs over anything else. That's unfortunate, because well-crafted regulations are an important part of creating sustainable and fair economic prosperity in the long run.feedback

Wilbur Ross

This is the first time any administration has canvassed the private sector to find the worst regulatory and permitting problems, and it is axiomatic that you can't solve a problem until you have identified it.feedback

J.P. Freire

We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policymaking. The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA's regulations, while also reviewing past decisions.feedback

Rick Perry

You might've read in the media that there was much discussion about U.S. energy policy and the fact that we're undergoing a review of many of those policies. It's true, we are and it's the right thing to do.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The last eight years, we had to choose between jobs and the environment, those days are over, noting that President Donald Trump has sent a . We have a president now that says that's a false choice. We have better leadership now. It is something we need to exit, in my opinion. It was an America second or third or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030. We frontloaded [it].feedback

Myron Ebell

I think it's prudent given the continuing activities by the left to foment hatred, and the reported hostility within the agency from some unprofessional activists.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on Chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment … By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.feedback

Liz Bowman

We are thankful to the court for granting our motion to postpone oral argument. In light of President Trump's pro-growth agenda, EPA continues to carefully review the broad implications of the 2015 ozone standard and ensure that we are supporting American jobs and protecting human health and the environment.feedback

Seth Johnson

We will continue to fight to protect public health under the Clean Air Act and for the continued implementation of the more protective 2015 smog standards. The EPA has no justification to weaken anything about these key pollution reduction measures, and we'll fight against that. We look forward to having our day in court in the future to fight for stronger protections.feedback

John Walke

President Trump is aiding baseless litigation mounted by Scott Pruitt before he was put in charge of EPA over the consensus of doctors and scientists.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Look, Chris–what we have to keep in mind is that the EPA only possesses the authority that Congress gives it. And the EPA has tried twice to regulate CO₂. As much as we want to see progress on clean air and clean water, with an understanding that we can also grow jobs, we have to do so within the framework that Congress has passed. The tools have to be in the toolbox. The job of administrator is to carry out statutes as passed by this body. In response to the CO₂ issue, the EPA administrator is constrained by statutes.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

The law is clear: the EPA must limit carbon pollution from power plants.feedback

Michael Eisen

They're right that government agencies should strive to use science that people have access to. The EPA is problematic when it relies on hidden industry data that people can't evaluate, and the public has every right to be skeptical of those decisions. The best way to protect against that is to have sunshine on the data. This isn't a guy who's politics I would agree on, but that was an example where not hiding a problem had a good outcome. Not every criticism of science is invalid just because it's being made by Republicans.feedback

Erik D. Olson - Natural Resources Defense Council

If the state doesn't have a program, which is true in most states, and if the EPA doesn't have a program, how are you going to have compliance with the lead rules? Basically, this is the guts of the program that protects kids from lead poisoning from paint.feedback

Julia Valentine

Administrator EPA in a more effective, more focused, less costly way as we partner with states to fulfill the agency's core mission.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We've demonstrated through the steps we've taken already, the pre-1994 levels, because of that technology – we can burn coal in clean fashion.feedback

Paul Towers - Pesticide Action Network

Given the science, we thought it seemed practically impossible to not move forward with the ban. We know it can have a profound impact on children's brain architecture and their lifelong learning.feedback

Bonnie Wirtz

By leaving this chemical on the market we are gambling with the lives of children and their long-term wellbeing and they have no choice in the matter. That's reckless and heartbreaking.feedback

Thomas Burke

The board has been incredibly efficient with the use of conference calling and call in. Modern technology has helped the board minimize travel. But the board does need to get together for critical reviews.feedback

Terry Yosie

I also think there is a direct relationship between these proposed budget reductions and legislation that is working its way through Congress to redefine how peer review gets conducted.feedback

William Schlesinger

The unfortunate thing is that this is the main way that the administrator gets scientific advice on things that the EPA proposes.feedback

Janet McCabe

We know that a little bit of cheating can mean a lot of air pollution.feedback

John Konkus

We know we can effectively serve the taxpayers and protect the environment. While many in Washington insist on greater spending, EPA is focused on greater value and real results.feedback

Chris Wallace

You think that rewriting and, in fact, doing away with the clean power plan is going to improve air quality, which you say is a major goal?feedback

Chris Wallace

But sir, you're giving me a regulatory answer, a political answer. You're not giving a health answer.feedback

Jeremy Symons

It's one thing to dodge the question, but it's especially weak to hide behind the success of Obama's initiative to justify erasing it all. Pruitt's attempting a complicated trick here – not only trying to sell a bottle of snake oil, but breaking the bottle during the pitch.feedback

Chris Wallace

But sir, you're kind of sugarcoating what you said. The question I have is: What if you're wrong? What if in fact the earth is warming? Simple question. What if you're wrong?feedback

James Delingpole - Breitbart News Network

Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump's environmental policy. … that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again.feedback

Chris Wallace

You're talking about regulatory overreach. But the question is, there are 166 million people living in unclean air, and you're going to remove some of the pollution restrictions, which would make the air even worse.feedback

Scott Pruitt

To demonstrate the leadership that we have shown on this issue with China and India and other nations is very important and discussions should ensue, but what Paris represents is a bad deal for this country. Human activities contribute to that change in some measure.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The real question is how much are we contributing to that and measuring that with precision.feedback

Stan Meiburg

In some ways, the common thread …. is, unless there's an explicit legal mandate that EPA has to do something, that EPA shouldn't be doing it.feedback

John Konkus

EPA will work with the President and Congress to redesign the way we do business to focus on achieving our core responsibilities - working with the states to ensure clean and breathable air, protecting water quality and investing in infrastructure, restoring our communities, ensuring timely review of chemicals and products to ensure safety for American families, all of which will have a positive impact on the environment and the economy.feedback

S. William Becker

This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they have less research and less peer review, they're going to have less of a foundation on which to base human health-based air quality standards.feedback

Sarah Lamdan

What's really happening is that they're preventing the EPA from doing its job.feedback

Sarah Lamdan

Cancer studies that took 30 years to compile evidence for, studies from natural disasters and chemical explosions – we can't reproduce those events. The way we regulate against our exposure to radioactive waste is we look at studies from Nagasaki and Hiroshima – clearly we're not going to reproduce those.feedback

Lexi Shultz

The bill would exclude some scientists with substantial expertise in their fields from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), [and] the SAB would suffer from the exclusion of valuable insight.feedback

Lexi Shultz

We're concerned that in these situations the EPA could be constrained from using important or relevant research in making decisions.feedback

Cass Sunstein

In the intergenerational context, there are compelling technical as well as ethical reasons to choose a relatively low rate, so as to avoid treating our children and grandchildren as if they are worthless.feedback

Cass Sunstein

Use of a 7 percent rate would be pretty ridiculous – and should be struck down, in court, as arbitrary.feedback

Lamar Smith

Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science originate with scientists who operate outside the principles of the scientific method. The [scientific method] avoids speculation about distant events for which there is no hard proof. Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is impossible. Anyone stating they know what the climate will be in 500 years or even at the end of the century is not credible. All too often scientists ignore the basic tenets of science in order to justify their claims.feedback

Sheryl Kunickis

This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science. It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the world. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States.feedback

Patti Goldman

EPA's refusal to ban this dangerous pesticide is unconscionable. EPA is defying its legal obligation to protect children from unsafe pesticides. We will be going back and asking the court to order EPA to take action now, rather than in 5 more years.feedback

Ken Cook

The chance to prevent brain damage in children was a low bar for most of Scott Pruitt's predecessors, but it apparently just wasn't persuasive enough for an administrator who isn't sure if banning lead from gasoline was a good idea. Instead, in one of his first major decisions as head of the EPA, like a toddler running toward his parents, Pruitt leaped into the warm and waiting arms of the pesticide industry.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

We're very confident that the EPA can't simply dismantle the Clean Power Plan and leave nothing in its place. We regret the fact that the president is trying to dial back history, but it's not going to happen.feedback

Ann E. Carlson

The EPA gets challenged a ton, but they win most of the time. And one of the reasons they win, even with conservative courts, is that they're very careful in really examining the science and building an administrative record that demonstrates expertise, and care, and thoughtfulness.feedback

Richard Nixon

I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America. Even the concept that you need extensive management of resources, like forests and water and soil, because they could otherwise be misused and wasted to the point where you would have crises of supply–even that doesn't get taken seriously in the U.S. until the decades after the Civil War.feedback

Jedediah Purdy

There was a sense among liberal lawyers–rooted in the real experience of the civil-rights era–that maybe the courts could do a whole lot in this domain. People thought it might be possible to redirect all of federal policy in an environment-friendly protection through NEPA suits.feedback